Miliband says the government decided to allow Mohamed to return to the UK even though he is not a citizen because it supported the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

1.13pm: In response to question from Jeremy Corbyn, Miliband says it is clear that the present US adminstration is opposed to torture.

1.10pm: Andrew Tyrie, Conservative, says the UK appears to have allowed itself to become complicit in torture. Will Miliband back a judge-led inquiry? David Cameron and Nick Clegg are both in favour.

Miliband questions whether Cameron is in favour of an inquiry.

He says the government has not concluded that an inquiry is necessary.

He also says that it is important to disinguish between torture and rendition. Both are reprehensible. But they are not the same thing, he says.

1.09pm: Dari Taylor, Labour, asks about the UK/US relationship.

Miliband says there will be a "taking stock" as a result of today's judgment.

1.07pm: Douglas Hogg, Conservative, asks when the government first found out that Mohamed had been tortured. Who found out? And what steps were taken to stop this?

Miliband says it was "the actions of the government" that got these documents to Mohamed's counsel. The divisional court effectively "congratulated" the governmnet for achieving that.

Miliband says he will write to Hogg with a more detailed answer.

1.07pm: Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the home affairs committee, asks Miliband when the police investigation will be over.

Miliband says he cannot give an answer to that question.

1.05pm: Julian Lewis, Conservative, says prisoner abuse is "lethal" to any counter-insurgency campaign. What representations did the UK make to the US when it became known the Americans were using water-boarding?

Miliband says the government did follow these things up with the Americans. He offers to spell this out in a letter to Lewis.

He says the publication of the new guidance - which is expected to take place soon - will be an important moment.

1.04pm: Miliband says, in response to a question from David Winnick, there have "significant changes" since 2002 in the way the security services operate.

Miliband says it is not correct to say that the government sought "redactions". What Sumption tried to do was to challenge one paragraph that Miliband said set out conclusions that went beyond the evidence.

The judges decided, having read the Sumption letter, that Sumption's concerns were "well-founded".

Miliband says Mohamed's counsel has apologised unreservedly for releasing this letter. Sending letters of this kind is normal legal practice, he says.

Miliband also says that the final judgment represents the view of the judges, and not the view of anyone else.

12.59pm: Diane Abbott, Labour, says people will be surprised to hear Miliband say he has been vindicated by the court decision today.

She says there are still questions to answer about past British involvement in torture.

12.56pm: Miliband says Davey "knows very well" that all relevant papers have been handed to the police.

He says "significant" changes have been made in the guidance issued to the intelligence agencies.

12.53pm: Ed Davey, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, says the seven paragraphs show the government knew that Americans were using torture.

What did the government do to tell the Americans they disapproved?

Does Miliband know if ministers knew that the Americans were torturing Mohamed? If so, will this information be passed on to the police.

Davey says he accepts that Miliband has acted in good faith.

But he urges Miliband to set up a wide-ranging inquiry.

12.48pm: Miliband is replying to Hague.

Miliband says he thinks Hague was wrong to say that the government could have achieved the same result by getting the Americans to release the document. He says that would not have resulted in a court upholding the "control principle".

He says, again, that it is wrong to say there is no oversight of the security services.

He says it is wrong to say the security services support torture.

And he says it is wrong to suggest that the government covers up torture allegations.

12.44pm: William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, welcomes the judgment. It upholds the "control principle", as well as the need for openness.

The treatment of Mohamed was not only "morally wrong". It damaged the UK's reputation.

Hague says the government should have asked the Americans for permission to publish the seven paragraphs.

He asks if there are any other allegations of torture that have threatened to undermine the "control principle".

In the light of the Detroit attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day, is the UK cooperating fully with the US on intelligence matters now?

Are there any other countries threatening to withdraw intelligence cooperation?

Are there any other police investigations into alleged collusion in torture by the intelligence agencies?

Hague finishes by asking for an assurance that lessons have been learnt.

12.37pm: Miliband says the government wanted to maintain the priniciple that it should not have to release intelligence belonging to other countries. He says the court of appeal has upheld this so-called "control principle".

He says the court today ordered the disclosure of the seven paragraphs because their content was in the public domain. If that had not been the case, the court would have upheld the government's case, he says.

Last night he spoke to Hillary Clinton about this case. It has been followed in the US at the "highest levels".

We will work carefully with the US in the weeks ahead to discuss the judgment and its implications.

The treatment of Mohamed goes against fundamental British principles, he says.

Mohamed was subject to sleep deprivation and to threats. This treatment was "not conducted by the UK".

The paragraphs do not contain information about the most serious allegations made by Mohamed, relating to genital mutiliation. Miliband says the Foreign Office does not have evidence to support these claims. They will be decided in court.

The UK firmly opposes torture, Miliband says. It has taken a "leading role to eliminate torture internationally".

He goes on:

We are luck to have the best intelligence agencies in the world.

It is a myth to say the security services operate without oversight, he says. Independent commissioners scrutinise the work of the intelligence agencies. And they are answerable to the courts.

The six judgments in this case, plus a closed judgment, show a "seriousness of purpose" in the legal system.

The government fought the case to protect the "control principle", he says.